(Delivered on 31/01/2018)

Per Hon’ble Smt. Jayshree Yengal, Member

1. This appeal challenges the order dated 30/7/2011, passed by the District Consumer Forum, Amravati partly allowing the consumer complaint bearing No. 51/2011 and thereby directing the opposite party/ insurance company to pay the complainant Rs. 1,08,000/- with 18 percent per annum interest from 1/11/2010 till its realization towards the insurance claim and Rs. 1,000/- more towards cost of proceedings.
2. The respondent M/s Mohan Industries is referred as complainant and appellant the New India Insurance Company is referred as opposite party ( OP for short), for the sake of convenience.
3. Facts in brief as set out by the complainant are as under.

The complainant  had taken an insurance policy covering Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy from the OP/ Insurance company for the period from 25/03/2010 to 30/09/2010. The complainant had paid the required premium towards the aforesaid policy. The sum assured  under the policy was Rs. 21,00,000/- The risk covered under the said policy was towards building and stocks stored in Godown No. 17, Godown No. 1 and Godown No. 6 owned by the company/complainant.

4. It is the contention of the complainant that there was heavy rainfall in the first week of September 2010 due to which the rainwater percolated in Godown No. 17. The stock stored in the said godown was badly damaged. The said damage was valued at Rs. 1,25,000/-. Approximately 177 bags of oil cakes were  damaged. The complainant came to know about the damage only on 11/9/2010 when he opened the Godown. He informed about the damage of his stock to the OP  on 14/9/2010 and 15/9/2010. The Op Insurance company appointed a surveyor one Mr. Laxinarayan Gupta  who  was provided with the necessary documents by the complainant as demanded by the surveyor on 17/9/2010 and 22/9/2010.
5. It is further contended by the complainant that  the OP insurance company  did not take any steps to settle claim of the complainant  till 19/11/2010. The complainant therefore by letter dated 21/1/2011 requested the insurance company to settle his claim  immediately.

     The OP neither settled the claim nor informed otherwise about it to the complainant.

6. The complainant alleging deficiency in service filed a consumer complaint and sought for claim of Rs. 1,25,000/-  with 18 percent per annum interest  from 1/12/2010 till its realization towards the damage caused to its stocks. The complainant further claimed Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 10,000/- more as compensation for mental and physical harassment and cost of proceedings respectively
7. The OP New India Insurance company Ltd. resisted the complaint  by filing its written version and  denied all the adverse allegations of the  complainant. The OP specifically submitted in its written version  that     according to the surveyor Laxminarayan Gupta’s  report “ the peril of cause that is rainwater entering/ percolating through the crack  at eastern side  wall portion,  is not covered under the policy. ”

          Therefore the insurance company is not liable to compensate the complainant and the complaint deserves to be dismissed.

8. The Forum after hearing both the sides and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the complaint as aforesaid.
9. The Forum below has arrived at the conclusion that the OP Insurance company has refused its liability on flimsy ground that the complainant had not furnished any document in support of the  stock in the Godown. If that was the case, then the insurance company has also failed to mention on what basis the surveyor has assessed the salvage value at Rs. 12,750/- and assessed the net loss at Rs. 1,07,190/-. Holding accordingly the Forum below partly allowed the complaint  for payment of Rs. 1,08,000/-& imposing 18 percent per annum interest  on Rs. 1,08,000/- towards the insurance claim from 1/11/2010 till realization.
10.  Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the OP insurance company has preferred this appeal and challenged the impugned order mainly on the ground that the damage caused to the stock of godown No. 17 was not covered under the policy conditions, as the seapage of water through the wall is not covered under the policy conditions.
11. We heard advocate Smt. Bharti Tamgadge for the appellant. Counsel for the respondent  filed the written notes of arguments (W.N.A.) with a pursis that it be treated as his oral arguments. We also perused the copies of the complaint, written version, the policy documents and other  documents filed on record.
12.  The facts in respect of  insurance policy of Standard Fire and Special Perils, policy period, sum assured, and premium paid are  not disputed. The only issue that survives for our consideration is whether  the peril of cause that is rainwater entering/ percolating through the crack of east side wall, portion is covered under the exclusion clause of the policy documents.
13. The policy document condition No. 6 reflects the damage or loss covered for “Storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood and inundation. The general exclusion clause of the policy, nowhere mentions seepage. The seepage was due to inundation. Hence only inference  can be drawn  that the damage or loss caused to the stock is  covered under clause of inundation.
14. The surveyor’s report on record also reflects  the  loss  assessed  at Rs. 1,27,440/-  and  salvage value at Rs. 12,750/-. The surveyor assessed net loss is 1,07,190/-. The  surveyor has also recorded in his report that there was heavy rainfall between 1^st and 10^th of September 2010 and the rainwater had entered the Godown No. 17 of Mohan Industries Premises. The rainwater had entered from the crack at the east wall which can be percolation. It is not the case of the appellant that there was no rainfall  and the damage was not caused due to inundation. Therefore refusing  the liability under the insurance claim for loss caused on  flimsy reason cannot be sustained in law, specially in the absence of  any documentary support by way of terms and condition of policy or other such evidence.
15. For the foregoing reason, we find no illegality or infirmity in allowing the claim of the respondent. However we are of the reasoned view  that imposing 18 percent annum interest is  unreasonably on higher side and allowing the insurance claim with 12 percent per annum interest would meet the ends of justice.
16. In the result, we pass the following order.

ORDER

1. Appeal is partly allowed.
2. The direction given  in clause No. 2 of the impugned order about payment of Rs. 1,08,000/- by opposite party to the complainant to indemnify loss sustained by complainant is maintained. But direction given in the impugned order about application of rate of interest of 18 percent per annum is modified and substituted to the effect that Rs. 1,08,000/- be paid with interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum from 1/11/2010 till its realization by the complainant.
3. The direction given in impugned order about payment of costs of Rs. 1000/- to the complainant by opposite party is maintained.
4. No order as to cost in appeal.
5. Copy of order be furnished to both the parties, free of cost.